Commentary on Politics, People and the News - especially in Minnesota. Send comments tips to lloydletta@gmail.com

Saturday, February 26, 2005

More Tom Swift

Yup he trolls around on gay blogs.... like Jason Carson's Out in Minnesota.

"That goat is gay marriage. It may not be a widely discussed opinion, and it certainly will not be a public discussion- but I can guarantee that almost all Democratic communications specialists are blaming gay marriage."

Had a chance to read any newspapers today Carson? Try the SF Chronical, or the Boston Globe, or the Wachington Times, or the Chicago Trib.

Heck, just close your eyes and "stick a pin" into google and read what comes up...I'd have to say that "it" most certainly is a most public discussion.

11 states passed constitutional amendments Carson, by an average of 70% margins, bringing the total to 17 that do not wish to endure the degradation of their traditions and morals.

And you can rest assured that Minnesota will be joining them shortly as well. Bet ya $50 it passes on the first try.

Do what you wish with your life, but it's time to get a clue don't you think?

Many of Senator Kerry's supporters have found a scapegoat for Ohio and the election loss to President Bush. That goat is gay marriage. It may not be a widely discussed opinion, and it certainly will not be a public discussion- but I can guarantee that almost all Democratic communications specialists are blaming gay marriage. I heard it when I worked for the Minnesota DFL during the campaign and I am sure the election results have only strengthened that opinion.

I have two major problems with this issue being used as a scapegoat.

The first would be the natural tendency for the issue to morph from "gay marriage" to "gay activism". There are major differences between the two. You can't blame the gay community for the dirty gay baiting the Republicans chose to use.

Democratic consultants gave Kerry bad advice on this issue. Consultants advised him to support the Massachusetts anti-marriage amendment. This made him look like a flip-flopper because he'd written a letter opposing such a constitutional amendment several years earlier.

Gay Democrats also need to play hardball. They need to tell these consultants (who they fund) to quit blaming gays, and take a good look within.

Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

As far as I can tell the Left doesn't care about terrorism, doesn't care about the Islamofascists, doesn't care about hundreds of thousands of people being murdered. All they care about is their own power. [...] The whole mainstream of the Democratic Party, I would say, is engaged in an effort that really is a betrayal of America.

Pair of Dice is Tom Swift's blog. Tom Swift is a failed school board candidate who is a source of constant embarrassment to the Republican Party in St Paul who endorsed his recent candidacy for school board. If I recall correctly, Swift came in behind a green party candidate in the primary.

"Twin Cities Gay Men's Chorus performs TONIGHT (Fri 4/25) at Highland Senior High. This 7:30 p.m. benefit concert will celebrate 15 years of progress for the Out for Equity program in Saint Paul Public Schools."

Nice to see we have our priorities straight Anne. Hey! How's about we replace those troublesome math questions with some GLBT terminology questions on the basic skills test!! I bet scores would soar!

Special credit for correctly donning a "fisting" glove or a essay on "the joys of barebacking"!

Public schools..what's not to love?

TJSWIFTSaint Paul

9:37 PM

Tom SwiftSwiftee said...

Faster than a withered braincell..

More powerful than a train of thought..

Able to leap reality in a single bound...

Look! Up on the screen! It's a turd! It's insane! It's SuperTroll!

Yes, it's SuperTroll - strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powertools and appetites far beyond those of normal women.

SuperTroll - who can stay the course of mighty blather, bend reality with her bare hands, and who, disguised as Eva Young, frustrated lesbian and moderator of a nasty little homersectional internet website, fights the never ending battle for Smut, Longer lasting batteries and the Anti-American Way.

11:40 AMlloydletta said...

lolol.... You want me to invite some others.... You know Swiftee, if you'd let well enough alone, and didn't advertise the fact you'd gotten me booted from MOB, I'd just be there on the blogroll. I was just doing that one post that mentioned MOB.... Now you've given Lloydletta more publicity - and DumpBachmann too.

Cheers.

10:58 PM

Tom SwiftSwiftee said...

blah, blah, blah..yea I'm sure all your fellow cave dwellers are all in a tizzy Eva.

Friday, February 25, 2005

A study in this month’s issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine found that parents are receptive to hypothetical vaccines against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Several vaccines are currently being developed. Based on interviews with 278 parents of adolescents age 12-17, the study revealed that parents were more willing to vaccinate their adolescents if the vaccines were 90 percent effective and if the STDs were fatal and no methods of behavioral prevention were available. But there is always a behavioral prevention available for sexually transmitted diseases: abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage. Although we support research on vaccines and medicines against diseases, including sexually transmitted ones, we see potential harm in giving young people vaccines against STDs. First, young people are risk-takers; they may think a vaccination is a license to engage in premarital sex. Second, vaccinations may help to reduce the risk of one disease, but young people may be exposed to new and unknown risks. Third, there is no vaccination for ailments of the heart. What will protect young people from the loneliness and regret they are likely to experience after premarital sex? Abstinence is the best medicine available for STDs; no one has ever needed a vaccine or antibiotic to treat a case of abstinence.

Finding a vaccine will take away God's punishment for sexual activity.

The Family Research Council shed a tear over the news that adolescent vaccinations prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Well, actually they would have if their darling, and Senate Republican Leader, Bill Frist hadn't told them that crying could spread HIV.

In their latest update titled STD Vaccinations: Not the Best Medicine, FRC's Tony Perkins (pictured above) decried a study in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine that showed that parents are very receptive to vaccines that would protect their children against STDs.

We see potential harm in giving young people vaccines against STDs...They may think a vaccination is a license to engage in premarital sex...Abstinence is the best medicine available for STDs

Perhaps this thinking is why President Bush increased the funding of failed abstinence-only education while promising to cut programs that have failed to produce results.

Tony Perkins from the FRC ran away from debate with Patrick Guerriero at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference. GayPatriotWest reports:

Although the Family Research Council refused to participate in the debate, the ACU did accommodate Guerriero, putting him on a "panel about disagreements within the conservative movement about marriage [where he] debated Kevin Blier of the Center for American Cultural Renewal." Looks like LCR is finally beginning to act like Republicans.

*Gay Democrats do not favor Social Security reform because they have little interest in the issue. They are less likely to have children. They also have a shorter life span due to their risky lifestyle. If anyone tries to teach you this at UNLV, the gay thought police will launch a secret investigation at taxpayer expense. At UNLV, you can pick up a hooker (and shorten your lifespan) but you can’t state the obvious about the consequences of sexual immorality.

On Women....

*Women already have the vote. They also comprise nearly 60% of college students. That is why university Women’s Centers rarely do anything that involves expanding women’s rights. In fact, because their successes have resulted in a shortage of men on campus, they are now forced to spend student fees on sex toys to help ease their sexual frustration. For example, the University of New Hampshire recently used mandatory (not to be confused with wo-mandatory) student fees to purchase sex toys, a guide to “underwear sex,” handcuffs, paddles, and vibrators. One pink vibrator, affectionately called Decadent Indulgence, cost $150.00. A demonstration of the vibrator’s capabilities was given on campus property in front of numerous onlookers. No, I am not joking. (See the following ).

Thursday, February 24, 2005

The Left Wing Savage Nation

Oh my. I just listened to the Majority Report for the first time. They were talking about USA Next with Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo. I tried calling in, but noone answered the phone so I commented on the blog. The show was truly wacko. There was lots about the party of bigotry and closeted self-hating gays. What they are really afraid of is the same thing the Leviticus Crowd is afraid of: openly gay people in the party of Lincoln.

Log Cabin Republicans has been speaking out publically in support of Bush's social security plan. Why have this issue get mixed in with anti-gay bigotry?

As I said on David Strom's blog comments (Strom is head of the Minnesota Taxpayer's League):

I resent how Republicans and Democrats use gays. Republicans like to use these marriage amendments to pander to anti-gay bigotry, while the Democrats like to use gays as an automatic teller machine, delivering no return on investment, and blaming the Republicans. My message to both parties: leave gay people alone. Don't put us on the ballot (which is what that so-called marriage amendment is all about).

If you look at the USA Next website, Jarvis has connections to James Dobson from Focus on the Family. Perhaps this is the way they are trying to work to get Leviticus Crowd support for Bush's social security plan. Recall the Arlington Group wrote a letter to the administration saying that if Bush didn't do more to push the anti-gay Musgrave amendment, they wouldn't support his social security plan. If AARP is liberal biassed, I would like to find a more conservative alternative. I don't want a front group though. I want a real group that doesn't use anti-gay appeals. If you look at their site in the issues section, one of their alerts is this: Support Mel Gibson's "The Passion"Tell the Academy not to discriminate against "The Passion" and to give it full consideration for Picture of the Year. Huh? What does this have to do with promoting Free Markets and Social Security privitization?

I would be interested in knowing what the AARP is doing to make social security more equitable for gays. Part of the reason Log Cabin Repubicans has taken a position in favor of Social Security Privitization is because private accounts are flexible in who gets the survivor benefit.

I also want to hear intelligent, rather than emotional arguments about this topic - on both sides.

I got an email notifying me, that Lloydletta's Nooz was removed from the MOB blogroll. Tom Swift commented here and elaborates on his blog.

A couple of days ago, St. Paul over at Fraters came up with a revised set of rules for membership in to the MOB. That's all well and good, but it may need to be refined a bit yet.

We have unwittingly admitted a fifth columnist.

I noticed that Eva Young had found her way into my comments the other day and wasn't too worried. I figured that someone had stirred the mud and she had popped back up out of the muck, but now I see that she has been added to the MOB blogroll.

Though I'm now deleted.

This project has been going on for a while. I started the Dump Michele Bachmann website because I think ultimately her anti-gay message is harmful in the long run to the Republican party.

But her specialty is radical homosexual activism. I came across Eva several years ago, as she defended the Saint Paul school district's decision to include homosexual indoctrination into the curriculum of classes starting in the third grade. In her spare time, she runs a particularly nasty little toilet on the web, along with her co-moderator, a gay white supremacist..no I'm not kidding. (Caution, don't click that link if there's kids in the room.)

Not surprising that Swift keeps on bringing up this story. My response is here. I'm a backup moderator on the USAQueers yahoogroup. In the end, what does that mean I do as far as moderation goes? Very little. That group discusses gay activism, and includes members from a variety of political perspectives. A number of the people there take what is considered conservative on some issues (guns, immigration), and take what is to be considered liberal on others (gay rights). It's an interesting group and conversations there are anything but politically correct. I'm also a member of the Catholics for Bush yahoogroup. My opinions on gay issues are in the minority on that group, but there are other issues where the regulars on that group and I agree.

Tom Swift hasn't changed I first met Tom Swift when I read this post on the St Paul Issues forum:

Here she starts right in with a blatent lie. I met Eva personally months before I posted the following, and had been having discussions with her on E-Democracy for months before that.

I looked back through the St Paul Issues archive, and noted that this post was after Randy Kelly had been elected mayor. I believe I remember debating with Swift over candidate Kelly refusing to answer the Lavender Magazine questionaire. So I believe Swift is correct. My memory is in error. I will put a correction on the original post.

On with the fisking:

Tom Swift introduced me to the term "fisting glove". I was not aware of that term before reading this post. A friend of mine enlightened me.

While I'm happy to see that Eva is capable of showing some embarressment, (sigh) she's lying..again. If you have any doubts that she is not completely versed in the most perverse acts known to man (or woman), take a meander through the archives at her usqueers website and decide for yourselves. (Better to take my word, trust me.)

Here Tom Swift is not correct. After I posted to the St Paul issues list that I was unfamiliar with what a "fisting glove" was, a friend of mine wrote to explain.

Let's see if she can stick to the truth for even one paragraph:

He hasn't changed a bit since he got his own blog. Here's one of his recent posts.Swift has run for St Paul School Board several times. He's gotten Republican Party endorsement, only to run his campaign in such a way to run down the brand "Republican" in St Paul further than it already is.

Guess not. I ran for SPPS school board once, and she knows it. As to "running down" the GOP, well folks she calls herself a Republican too, you be the judge.

I stand corrected on this. I was mixing up Swift's role in putting out an anti-gay flyer about openly gay St Paul school board member, Al Oertwig with an earlier school board run. I do recall his run for the school board in 2003.

Eva has heartburn because I bring light into subjects that Eva and her ilk rather are left in the dark.

Actually if I had "heartburn" over Tom Swift's postings on the issue of Out for Equity, I would not have raised the issue on my blog. I did ask the people at the GLSEN table at Twin Cities Gay Pride about the so-called "fistgate" issue, and they didn't know enough about it. I had called the GLSEN office and did not get a return phone call. This was years ago. I did meet Kevin Jennings when he spoke at Blake school a few years ago - and asked him, and I don't recall the details, but he said the Parents Rights Council misrepresented GLSEN.

Sorry dear, that's what I do.

It's what I do also.

I have no problem with the marketplace of ideas. I encourage Mr Swift to continue to write about this issue.

In any case, I'm calling for a MOB ruling. Speaking for myself, I really don't want to share a blogroll with Ms. Young because I don't care to be connected in any way to crap like this.

What say ye MOBsters?

Well the MOB person I contacted about getting admitted into the group originally emailed me and said I was accepted onto their group. Later that same person wrote and told me that I was removed because some MOB members complained. I assume it was Tom Swift.

Update: The honor of "our thing" has been upheld; lloydletta.blogspot.com sleeps with the fishes.

Interesting that MOB doesn't seem to be interested in having diverse views. It's up to them who they want on their blogroll ofcourse.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Blog Update

Welcome Minnesota Organization of Blogs Readers!

I've started a Dump Michele Bachmann blog to compile the information I've collected about the obsessively anti-gay Senator Bachmann. This blog has gotten recent coverage in the Pioneer Press and City Pages. Check it out here.

So there are now two blogrolls on Lloydletta: Lloydletta's Nooz and the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers (MOB).

Disclosure: I do not get any income from blogging. This is a hobby for me. As a hobby, I may have periods when I post more, and periods when I post less. I don't generally communicate about my down times.

UPDATE: Corrected references to Minnesota Alliance of Blogs to Minnesota Organization of Bloggers (MOB). Lloydletta's Nooz appologises for the error.

Pharyngula comments on an over the top claim by Hindrocket at Powerline. Hindrocket if you recall is the guy who lost it and sent these two nastygrams to readers who criticized his point of view. Paul Meyers at Pharyngula is a Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota Morris and comments frequently on Creationism, including the "Intelligent Design" variety.

Professor Volokh seemed to assume that someone who doesn’t believe in evolution is a harmless crank, who should not on that account be barred from pursuing a career in, say, medicine. My own view is different. I think that Darwin’s theory of macroevolution is plainly wrong, on strictly scientific grounds. So to bar a student from progressing in his career because he refuses to sign on to what is, in my view, a rather obvious fraud, which cannot withstand the mildest scrutiny, is really an outrage. It is no different from the practice in Soviet Russia of promoting only biologists who believed (or pretended to believe) in the theories of Lamarck, who argued that acquired traits could be inherited. But Darwinism is the official religion of the biological (and more generally, the scientific) establishment, and as such is rigorously enforced.

The evidence of our doofism lies in the fact that Rocket Man does not believe that the theory of evolution is correct. This belief renders him a "clueless nitwit," inasmuch as the critique of Darwin's theory of evolution is "a stinking pile of baloney" rejected by the "overwhelming majority of scientists." The blogger himself makes no argument on the subject, but he assures his readers that he is prepared to "mop the floor" with Rocket Man in a debate on the subject.

Call me stupid (again), but I have a tough time understanding why the views of Rocket Man on evolution are relevant to the quality of our poltical commentary and reporting. But this is the state of so much of today's left -- unwilling and/or unable to argue political issues (or scientific ones, as far as appears) on the merits. Under leftist logic, the fact that one of us doesn't believe a piece of scientific orthodoxy demonstrates, what, that our attacks on liberal political orthodoxies, falsehoods, and forgeries shouldn't be taken seriously? If a majority of scientists disagree with Rocket Man about Darwin, then he must be wrong not only about Darwin, but about Rather.

They don’t understand how their opinion of evolution is relevant to any assessment of their political stance. There is a sense in which that is correct—if someone honestly says they don’t know enough of the scientific story to be able to judge, I think that would actually speak well of their ability to evaluate evidence. That is not what Hindrocket did, however. He pompously claimed that "the empirical foundations of Darwinism have crumbled under attack by a new generation of biologists, especially microbiologists." Either he knows better, and he’s lying, or he’s completely ignorant of what biologists say, and he shouldn’t be pretending to have knowledge he lacks. Either way, he’s demonstrating a disgraceful lack of respect for the evidence, and that does call his judgment into question. If I, who have never cracked a lawbook in my life, were to try to tell lawyers how to practice law, and made egregious errors of fact in my claim and even mangled the vocabulary, there’d be no hesitation about deservedly calling me a fool, an idiot, a pretentious poseur…so I’m returning the favor here. Hindrocket doesn’t know biology, period. He’s a fool, an idiot, and a pretentious poseur for acting as if he does.

He notes Powerline's typical way of responding to criticism.

They whine that they’ve been insulted. I’m sorry, but when Hindrocket can blandly assert that almost the entire Democratic party consists of traitors who are in alliance with terrorists to destroy America, they’ve lost the privilege of complaining from a lofty moral height about the level of the criticisms levied by others. Wingers are incredibly thin-skinned, aren’t they? They can fling it, but they can’t take it.

He also points out the Powerline fan base is rather wacked, just as some of John Aravosis's fans who called Hindrocket at work were wacked:

And, you know, they don’t have comments on Power Line, but their fan base is appalling. I got a pair of obscene phone calls last night, after their article was posted, an attempted denial-of-service attack, and a flood of e-mail this morning. Some of it is just godawful stacks of obscenities, while the more civil stuff is basically, "I am a lawyer, and evolution is just a theory." Good grief. Go read this and come back when you have half a clue. You’re confirming my prejudice that Power Line readers are benighted morons.

I know this may be hard for some of PZ’s regular readers to believe, but you don’t have to be a liberal to be appalled by these guys.

My politics tend to lean center-right (with a libertarian streak), and guys like Hindrocket embarrass the heck out of me, as do blatherers like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin. When it’s so mind-numbingly clear that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to evolution (and, worse, hasn’t bothered even to try to educate himself). People like Hindrocket are totally embarrassing and one of the reasons I can no longer consider myself a Republican.

It’s particularly annoying when they use the old “just a theory” crap, because it reveals such a monumental ignorance of not just evolution, but of science, that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about it.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Speaking of social conservatives, I caught about 5 minutes of Rick Santorum on CSPAN Saturday night, answering a question about "fathers rights", apparently following his speach to CPAC.

My jaw literally dropped.

Santorum, in a nutshell, said this: The homosexual activists constantly point out that those of us who oppose same-sex marriage aren't doing anything about the mess we've created with respect to straight marriage. The activists say that we have no business talking about them when we aren't doing anything about us. They have a point. We have no credibility talking about the disastrous effect of same-sex marriage on families when the divorce rate is 50%, when half of the divorced fathers don't see their kids even once a year, and don't support them. We cannot credibly oppose same-sex marriage unless and until we address our own situation.

I've been trying to find a transcript, but no luck so far.

I am not suggesting that Santorum is beginning to see the light -- that would take a conversion of St. Paul magnitude -- but his comments suggest to me that we might be making some progress pointing out the hypocrisy of the social conservative's obsession with gays and lesbians.

And if Santorum has started talking like this, you know it is because he's been getting a lot of flack on the issue.

At any rate, if anyone comes across a transcript of his remarks during the question and answer -- this was at the very end of his presentation -- I'd be most appreciative to get a link.

"Twin Cities Gay Men's Chorus performs TONIGHT (Fri 4/25) at Highland Senior High. This 7:30 p.m. benefit concert will celebrate 15 years of progress for the Out for Equity program in Saint Paul Public Schools."

Nice to see we have our priorities straight Anne. Hey! How's about we replace those troublesome math questions with some GLBT terminology questions on the basic skills test!! I bet scores would soar!

Special credit for correctly donning a "fisting" glove or a essay on "the joys of barebacking"!

Public schools..what's not to love?

TJSWIFTSaint Paul

Tom Swift introduced me to the term "fisting glove". I was not aware of that term before reading this post. A friend of mine enlightened me.

He hasn't changed a bit since he got his own blog. Here's one of his recent posts.

Swift has run for St Paul School Board several times. He's gotten Republican Party endorsement, only to run his campaign in such a way to run down the brand "Republican" in St Paul further than it already is.

Could someone please explain to me what the lefties are so worked up about l'affaire Gannon/Guckert?

I know that Nick Coleman has an obsession with sodomy, at least on air. I know that liberals love to attack gays when it suits them (remember the Kerry/Cheney incident). But what exactly is the point?

I have NEVER read a single news story written by this guy. Nor have I heard anything suggesting that Gannon had any influence anywhere.

How is this similar to Eason Jordon, in charge of news coverage at CNN, who was spreading lies about the US military torturing and killing journalists intentionally? Nick Coleman seems to think that discovering a gay Republican is worthy of an hour or three on Air America. Go figure.

If you haven't listened to Nick Coleman on Air America yet, do so. It is enlightening.

The GayPatriot Take is here. His first post on the subject was very insightful:

In response to a commenter, I took a look at the brewing blogosphere story regarding a reporter called "Jeff Gannon" from "TalonNews.com." Thanks to Lloydletta for this link which provides a good summary.

Now here are my thoughts on this from what I know...

First, I'm skeptical of buying all of this story as laid out by WorldO'Crap and Americablog (who has a slew of "updates" on this).

But what really troubles me... is the automatic jump to conclusion about people based on innuendo and rumor-mongering (by John Aravosis and Michael Rogers). This seems to be the same type of "outing" campaign, just with different sets of circumstances. To what end is "exposing" this guy going to advance the liberal cause besides embarassing the President which seems to be their only talking point lately.

That being said, if this guy was in fact a job-drifter and possible male prostitute (!!!) then what on earth was the White House thinking in giving him a press pass and access to the White House in this day and age of terrorism?

Let me make a final observations. The liberal blogs appear to be having a field day with this, but are ignoring the Eason Jordan story. It will be interesting to see how the conservative blogs deal with the Gannon issue.... if it develops as the liberal blogs seem to be suggesting.

One downside to the blogosphere seems to be further polarizing of news, facts, and in turn our political discourse. That's too bad.

It seems we need to all "weigh" the importance of various stories before equalizing them. Maligning troops in a time of war (Eason Jordan) seems a bit more important than a slacker/male prostitute finessing his way into a press pass and being smart enough to throw softball questions at Scott McClellan.

The story has made Hindrocket over at Powerline rather testy. MinnPolitics reveals an email the "Rocketman" asking him to comment on the Gannon/Guckert story:

You dumb shit, he didn't get access using a fake name, he used his real name. You lefties' concern for White House security is really touching, but you know what, you stupid asshole, I think the Secret Service has it covered. Go crawl back into your hole, you stupid left-wing shithead. And don't bother us anymore. You have to have an IQ over 50 to correspond with us. You don't qualify, you stupid shit.

A commenter shared another one - with full headers:

Seph, you poor stupid asshole. Your email made no sense; you couldn'targue your way out of a paper bag. Get lost, you dumb shit! We have no time for people who can't frame a coherent argument. You are stupid: that's fine, you're a Democrat. That's why you and your party are losers. Please don't clog up our email box with your idiotic comments. You are a fool. Get used to it, and leave usnormal people alone.

At 3:00 Monday afternoon, Hindrocket apologises - sort of. But says he'd been goaded into it by "hate mail" - and by getting phone calls at his office number, that he lists on the blog. The number listed on Faegre and Bensons website is a general number, not a number to Hindrocket's secretary. However Hindrocket did describe one tactic that is really out of line:

These are not nice people. In addition to emailing us at our feedback address with every manner of invective, they called my office. My secretary stopped answering my telephone because callers swore at her. The telephone campaign reached a new low this morning, when someone purporting to be a reporter at a gay newspaper in Los Angeles called my office and asked me to comment on a "rumor" to the effect that there are photos floating around of me in a "tryst" with Jeff Gannon. Suffice it to say that these people are beneath contempt.

I've been the victim of someone from a gay list calling me at work and pretending to do a story on Log Cabin Republicans. He asked me a number of things about my resume and background, and also some things about Log Cabin. At the end of the conversation, I ask him to please keep anything related to my employer off his story. (I purposely keep my blog a big arms length from my workplace). Because of this, he assumed I was "closeted" at work. He then posted a hit piece to the gay list we are both on, and went on and on about how I was this huge closet case, self hating gay person. Now I expect this sort of thing from the Culture and Family Institute or World Net Daily - but not from someone else who claims to be working on behalf of gay equal rights. By the way, I have a response to this hit piece here.

Monday, February 21, 2005

OK, the reason Lisa McDonald did not receive an acceptable rating (notethis IS NOT the swame as being found not acceptable) is not because she ran against the endorsement before or plans to again.

In fact, during the meeting there was an evolution of thinking on this issue in that we are more willing to look past that issue when it comes to acceptable ratings. Due, in part, to our responsibility to the broader GLBT community. We issued acceptable ratings for several candidates who are planning to run whether or not they get DFLendorsement.

The deciding factor with Ms. McDonald, as it was with Mr. Samuals, was her active support of a candidate from an entirely seperate political party in the recent past. In 2002 she served as the finance director for the Penny for Governor campaign when he was running under the banner of the Independence Party.

Regarding my comments regarding the Mayor, it does appear that I was mistaken and a apologize to the Mayor for that. This does not change my vote on that issue, as I had other reasons, but I do apologize for the mistake.) I would also note that I was not attributing any comments to Gary Schiff but just thought he might have more information.

As for those who think I am simply being an "endorsement fascist" I will note that if that were the case I would not ahve switched to supporting Chris Coleman for St. Paul Mayor (remember folks, I actually live in St. Paul) on Saturday. Even though he has run against and supported other Democrats against the DFL endorsement in the past he very much impressed me and made it easy for me to support him.

Finally, if you guys keep picking on me I feel it is only fair to let you know that my big sister is now a member of this list and you don't want to know waht she did to people who picked on me in grade school!

Log Cabin Republicans has been speaking out publically in support of Bush's social security plan. Why have this issue get mixed in with anti-gay bigotry?

The Truth Truck certainly didn't seem to help with Republican campaigns in Minnesota.

I also sent a copy of this to Powerline Blog. "Hindrocket" went on record on Reliable sources this weekend, stating he didn't like the Gay Baiting used by the left in going after Fake News Reporter James Guckert aka Jeff Gannon. Well I hope he speaks up against the stupidity of trying to mix the Social Security message with the culture wars over gay people.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

From Stonewall DFL Communications Director Paul Skrbec's posting to the Minneapolis Issues List... Skrbec is speaking for himself - not officially for Stonewall in this case.

EY: Lisa Vecoli (a former aid of Peter McLaughlin) spoke about her reasons for bringing the resolution to find Rybak unacceptable

DS: That motion was improper, had no place at a Stonewall DFL endorsement, and should never have been brought to a vote. In my term on the board I never heard a motion to find a candidate "unacceptable"- the proper form was to move that a candidate was acceptable. If 50% voted yes the candidate was rated acceptable, if not the candidate was not further mentioned. In fact, Stonewall DFL has no "unacceptable" rating, only "acceptable" and "endorsed" ratings.

Skrbec: EY was incorrect in reporting of the situation. Lisa Vecoli introduced a motion to find "ONLY" Peter McLaughlin acceptable - not find Rybak 'unacceptable'. As co-chair of the endorsement proceedings, I reminded the 38 voting members that were present that an affirmative vote on the measure would eliminate RT Rybak from consideration from the endorsement proceedings. DS is correct in that there is no "unacceptable" rating allowed in the Stonewall constitution. Today's vote by the board of directors was to ratify the membership recommendation for McLaughlin's endorsement. There was a separate motion from a member of the board of directors to recognize RT Rybak's administration as being acceptable on GLBT issues. I voted in support of Rybak as an acceptable candidate on GLBT issues.

I stand corrected. Skrbec also corrects my recollections of exactly what the 5th Ward resolution was.

With respect to the Ward 5 race:

EY stated: "Megan Thomas made a motion to overturn the recommendation by the Stonewall membership for the Ward 5 race. This was because Don Samuels had supported a Green Party candidate against a DFL candidate (Dianne Loeffler) in Northeast Minneapolis. Tim Bonham and Andy Heuer spoke against this. However the motion carried."

Skrbec: The motion from Megan Thomas was to "take no action in the ward 5 campaign at this time." That motion had discussion pro and con with respect to candidates that actively work against a DFL endorsed candidate in a race. This was far more than not honoring an endorsement - this was actively working against a candidate. I voted for the motion to take no action at this time so that we could continue to investigate this situation prior to making any endorsement.

I've emailed Skrbec for further clarification. I'm curious whether this means Samuels still has an opportunity to get Stonewall endorsement.

(Saint Paul, MN) February 19, 2005 - In advance of precinct caucuses, ward and city conventions the Minnesota Stonewall DFL caucus announced its preferred candidates for Minneapolis and Saint Paul Mayor along with other city-wide races. Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLauglin was endorsed for Minneapolis Mayor and Chris Coleman was given the endorsement for the Saint Paul Mayor's race. The caucus also rated current Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak and Ramsey County Commissioner Rafael Ortega as acceptable.

"As a caucus within the MN DFL party, we are the GLBT voice of Democratic politics. The Stonewall DFL endorsement has become more and more important to the success of candidates," said Associate Chair Jill Schwimmer. "Our screening and endorsement process is unique in that it brings together candidates, our general membership and our elected Board of Directors to determine which candidate will best represent the current and future needs of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities. In 2004 our endorsed candidates won in over 75% of their races because of the volunteer and fundraising efforts of our members."

In the race for Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board - District 2, Jon Olson was endorsed; District 5, Carol Kummer was endorsed and Jason Stone was given an acceptable rating; At-Large race endorsed candidates were John Erwin, Rochelle Berry Graves and Paula Gilbertson.

Carol Becker and Gordon Nelson were endorsed for the Board of Estimate and Taxation.

As an officially chartered caucus of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, Stonewall DFL is Minnesota's first political organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Visit stonewalldfl.org to make online contributions, sign up for the monthly Stonewall DFL e-mail newsletter, find up-to-date event information, candidate and constituency resources and volunteer opportunities. The public may also call the 24-hour information line at 651-251-6328.

I appreciate the chance to correct a very inaccurate statement that was reported on the list in posts about the Stonewall discussion yesterday. I have had the priviledge of working with Deputy Chief Sharon Lubinski in many communities in this city in many situations and she has extraordinary abilities to reach out to include everyone. I have said this in public and private situations, and am proud that Deputy Chief Lubinski has been promoted to direct all patrol operations in the city.

I did not make the statement below and it does not reflect my beliefs.

R.T. Rybak

The statement Rybak is responding to is this:

Megan Thomas mentioned during discussion that Rybak had been quoted saying this: "The Black community wouldn't accept Sharon Lubinski as Police Chief". I asked Megan for her source after the meeting, and she said she didn't recall the source - but thought it may have been the Spokesman - and to ask Gary Schiff.

As I said yesterday, if this quote wasn't accurate, Megan Thomas owes the Mayor an apology. She also owes Stonewall DFL board members an appology for passing on disinformation when the board was deliberating on whether to give the Mayor an acceptable rating.

Contrast this with Natalie Johnson Lee continuing her silence about whether the anti-gay Bob Battle expressed her views accurately in his article supporting Bachmann and the Bachmann amendment, or whether she was expressing her own views when she spoke on behalf of the Green Party in response to Bush's State of the Union. When I talked to Johnson Lee, she disputed the account of Darrell Gerber, the 5th District Green Party Chair. At the Minneapolis Issues gathering in January, 8th Ward Council Member Robert Lilligren told me he had talked to Natalie Johnson Lee about the Bob Battle article.

Bob Halfhill, a member of Lavender Greens also wrote Natalie Johnson Lee a strongly worded letter urging her to go public and clarify her position. Halfhill told me that Natalie Johnson Lee never responded to his letter.

Jeff Shaw has a column in the LA Times criticizing bloggers about their role in the Eason Jordan story. I think the problem isn't bloggers. The problem is with more rapid news cycles, the mainstream media doesn't do enough fact checking. There's way too much press release journalism that goes on, and too little picking up the phone and double checking facts.

John Hinderaker (Hindrocket) of Powerline and John Aravosis of Americablog face off on Reliable Sources and on theirblogs. On Reliable Sources, Hinderaker said Aravosis was "gay-baiting" by pushing this story. Aravosis responded to this in more detail on his blog. On the show he focused on the hooker part of Gannon's resume rather than the gay part. There was also the discussion about whether Gannon did or did not write anti-gay articles.